Social Identity Theory And Theories Surrounding Intergroup Relations

The social identity theory (SIT) was proposed by Taifel and later on established by Taifel and Turner (1971) to better understand the intergroup relations and group processes. The SIT is based on the assumption that people may try to improve their self-image by trying to boost their self-esteem, based on either personal or social identities that may be caused by either in-groups or out-groups. Several studies have investigated the social identity theory, including experiments such as the Tajfel (1970), Howarth (2002), and Cialdini et al. (1976). These studies show how they have demonstrated the minimal group model created by in-group bias; investigated the tendency to associate one’s self publicly with successful others; and showed how social representations of where you live can affect the social identity juvenile girls. This essay will evaluate the strengths and limitations of the social identity theory by using the studies above.

Social identity theory proposed by Tajfel & Turner (2004) is a theory of group membership and behaviour which has made significant contributions in explaining in-group favouritism, out-group denigration, competition and other interactions of an individual among social groups (Korte, 2007; Brown, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Social identity theory can be defined as an individual’s sense of who they are based on the group that they belong to through a process of self-categorisation and depersonalisation (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). In this essay, I will define social identity theory through its three mental processes involved in group evaluation which are: social identification which is a process whereby we are placed into certain

The creation of a group identity means far more than placing a label on a number of people with a universe for those who are members of the group and for non-members who affirm and recognize the group’s existence. “At the individual level identity is an answer to the question ‘who am I in relation to other people?’ At the social level it is a response to the question: ‘Who are we in relation to other human groups?’” (Mach 1993:4). Those who are in a group together are identified as being closer to the “self” of one another while those outside the group are distanced from the “self” and become “other.” In most cases, this self/other divide is minimal and the opposition of “us” and “them” is little more than categories for “us” and “not

Social identity is a theory which explains how people develop a sense of belong and membership to a group. Individual’s social identity is part of their self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group together with the emotional significance attached to that membership (Forsyth, 13). People are influenced on the group they belong to. Belonging to the in-group makes a person feel good because they belong somewhere in this group and allows them to feel important. The out-group is where people feel to be, they do not belong to a group and have feeling of exclusion and are often times treated more harshly than someone who belongs to the ingroup. This bias of favoring the ingroup relative to the outgroup leads to false impressions being made and stereotypes forming. Stereotypes help us navigate the world around us by providing a quick representation of what we think a person is like. This does not mean our perceptions are always correct and occasionally, this quick mental shortcut can get us into trouble. For example, the film 12 Angry Men stereotyping was rampant among the jury. When a stereotype is used it can cause a disruption of procedures. Instead, of inspecting all the evidence with an objective eye a bias can allow for systematic

The process of Social Identity Theory consists of in-group members who will communicate the positive aspects

However, as the out-groups received a higher rating for their internal success attributions, it implies while there is still an element of the self-serving bias, where we rate ourselves higher for our garment, and lower for external success attributions, there is still the bias if we know others in the other groups, where we could favour them, thus our opinions of others, other things and our can be influenced by relationships.

Referred to as the negativity effect, researchers argue that individuals attribute higher values to negative information than to positive information in the overall evaluation of an entity (Fiske, 1980; Klein, 1996). Similarly, the negativity effect has also been shown to influence the perceptions or evaluations of other people (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Wright, 1974). Prior research has argued that the negativity effect emerges as a result of positive expectations individuals have of others (Ahluwalia, 2002; Klein & Ahluwalia, 2005). For example, Klein and Ahluwalia (2005) posit that positive expectations compel individuals to underestimate the value of positive information when negative information is present. Moreover, due to disproportionate

History is stained with groups of people hating other groups of people— be it people of a different race, religion, sexuality, or nationality. Such intolerance towards people of a different walk of life can manifest itself in a nation’s laws and political climate. How can society fix the problem of groups hating other groups? In the 1950’s, psychologists claimed that the answer to this highly complicated problem is surprisingly simple: have the two different groups interact with one another. After all, it is easy to harbor resentment towards groups when they are painted in a negative light or stereotyped. It is more difficult to dislike individuals, however.

The social theory perspective that intrigues me is the second process known as identification. After one finds a specific category/group identify with, the person adopts the identify of the group as their own. These identifications then become tied to the person’s emotional being as well as self-esteem. Moreover, if the identity of a person is compromised or threatened, positive and negative responses are likely to occur.

This paper will explain the concept of self-serving bias and provide examples of how we use self- serving bias in our daily lives. Two articles will be presented in this paper showing how researchers suggested the presence of self-serving attributional bias with people making more internal, stable, and global attributions for positive events, rather than for negative events. The second article will discuss how emotions, judgement, and attributions influence the self-serving bias. The methods used, and researching finds will be explained in further detail for each study. The purpose of this paper is to express and show scientific proof that our emotions, judgements, and attributions play a key role in influencing self-serving bias.

And important helping us understand, uhm, ah, work goes on in a work place. People are getting rewarded and it 's done on schedules just like the rats in a, in a Skinner boxes. And so, there are lots of parallels there.” (Riggio, 2006) Social cognitive theory which stresses the idea that much human learning occurs in a social environment. By observing others, people acquire knowledge, rules, skills, strategies, beliefs, and attitudes. Individuals also learn from models the usefulness and appropriateness of behaviors and the consequences of modeled behaviors, and they act in accordance with beliefs about their capabilities and the expected outcomes of their actions. (Schunk, 2016) It would be best to better associate your observation to those individuals who are successful opposed to those who have derogatory opinions about others because this does not help one do their job successfully.

The segregation of groups most times leads to intergroup prejudice. One theory which is useful to consult in

Perhaps one of the most interesting topics in social psychology is the concept of cognitive dissonance. One of the first people to define this concept was Leon Festinger, and it is described as, “the result of an inconsistency between two or more cognitions—that is, one cognition follows from the opposite of the other” (McKimmie, 2015, p. 202). According to Festinger, people long for consistency in their environment, and they begin to feel uncomfortable with all the dissonant cognitions present in their views about the world and about themselves (Scott-Kakures, 2009, p. 77). When presented with these contradictory thoughts and beliefs, a person will attempt to either reduce the cognitions, or will misinterpret the thoughts, or will strive to gain others’ support (Scott-Kakures, 2009). Since people frequently encounter information that is contradictory, they may try to persuade themselves that their belief is the correct one (Liu & Keng, 2014, p. 980). In order to eliminate these cognitive dissonances, the person must reduce the number of the contrasting cognitions and increase the number of consonant cognitions (Scott-Kakures, 2009). Leon Festinger’s perspective on cognitive dissonance has had a profound impact on social psychology, as he attempted to determine the effect cognitive dissonance had on a person’s self-concept, and one study from Social Psychology Network that best aligns with Festinger’s theory is “The Perception of Social Group Attitudes” from University of

Most people strive to produce the most positive image of themselves, to society and those around them. This behavior, the outward expression of ourselves, is known as the social self. While most perceive our social self to be heavily influenced by our personal causes, studies continue to display situational influences as well (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2014). This underestimated role of situations on our social self, is coined fundamental attribution error (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2014). Below details individualistic and collective cultures influences and well as cognitive biases effects on fundamental attribution error and ultimately our social self.

Humans learn through their own experiences and others people’s experiences. While both are necessary, the most efficient method is learning through others processes. Through this, people can change their behavior to adapt to a situation that others have been through without actually experiencing them. This is an extremely powerful process because humans can use other’s knowledge to help them in future situations while saving a lot of time and energy. This information is constantly spread and causes a large cycling effect that reuses knowledge. We spread this information verbally in many different ways, but one of the most used tactics is criticism. Criticism is one of the most essential due to how it directly points out what others are doing wrong through someone else’s experiences. Due to its nature, this response makes people re-evaluate how they are acting and causes them to learn from both their past experiences and someone else’s. This message causes the target to decide to either trust the knowledge of the accuser or to use their own knowledge. Furthermore, when the accused logic